Question about IFF

[PythonOne]

Is there a way to tell if the target you locked on is friendly if they have their ECM on?

[Kuky]

I think not. Untill the radar signal is strong enough to overcome jammer signals it won't show it its friendly or foe. With Awacs available however, I don't know if you actually ask AWACS for IFF if they would know... I never actually tried it. I think AWACS should be able to ID the aircraft, after all, they can direct you to any near by enemy aircraft.

[FrankTheSpank]

Sure ya can, just ask :D

[S77th-GOYA]

Yep, call AWACS and ask it to "Declare".

 

It's been brought up that F-15s should be able to IFF jammers, but in LOMAC, no dice.

[Allochtoon]

Yeah whats the point of BVR when everyone uses jammers, or carrying and always using a jammer. Jammers should be unlocked with the same sequence of questions you got in the first Larry games.

[hitman]

Id have to ask this, but if jammers are active on US sides...would the jammer jam all frequencies on the radar and squelch out everything or will it skip certain frequencies to allow friendlies to identify by RWR and radar?

[Pilotasso]

Thats a few questions GG and Sythe will answer shortly. :D

[GGTharos]

A self protection jammer will try to primarily jam the biggest threat, ie. the 'closest' radar that is locked onto you. It knows which freq to jam because it is receiving this frequency, obviously.

 

However a jammer can only jam a limited number of emitters, so if 4 aircraft locked onto your plane, you will very likely be unable to jam all of them, especially if they come from different directions or use different frequencies or PRFs - and that certain is done to deconflict radar signals in a flight.

 

There are some powerful jammers out there that can and will do better, but they are -typically- not found onboard fighter aircraft. We're talking about stand-off jammers like the E-6, etc. This is the type of jammer that LO is simulating right now, it seems - or at least, closer to that than an SPJ.

 

A jammer is typically purpose-built and the purpose is to jam radar emissions. As such it will not necessarily jam an IFF signal at all - and this signal will also typically tell the interrogator the position of the interrogated aircraft, as well as potentially other data, such as altitude, vector etc.

 

Missiles definitely use proportional navigation in HoJ but the Pk IS lower than a non-jammed shot.

 

Yes, ED is looking into making it all more realistic - but do -not- hold your breath. I don't think we will see such in BS.

[p_o_d_2_2]

i don't know if this is relevant, but i read (on the boeing website IIRC) that the F-18G was having trouble because it was jamming itself.

[GGTharos]

The F-18G is one huge jammer :P

Some aircraft have this issue, some do not. The -G, remember, is a STANDOFF JAMMER. Its job is to jam /everything/, not to operate its radar.

[gundelgauk]

However a jammer can only jam a limited number of emitters, so if 4 aircraft locked onto your plane, you will very likely be unable to jam all of them, especially if they come from different directions or use different frequencies or PRFs - and that certain is done to deconflict radar signals in a flight.

I don't want to hijack the thread but I've been wondering about something and it fits in here so please forgive me. From what I've seen, jammers in LOMAC generally seem to jam everything around them in a 360° area, no matter how many jets there are.

 

Now on the Su-27 and -33 it's possible to equip either one or two jamming pods. I've read somewhere that only one pod will be a bit less effective but not very noticably and certainly not so much to impair the advantage of being able to carry one more R-73.

 

Has anyone tested if this is true or is the jamming performance significantly reduced (in LOMAC, not in reality)?

[GGTharos]

I don't want to hijack the thread but I've been wondering about something and it fits in here so please forgive me. From what I've seen, jammers in LOMAC generally seem to jam everything around them in a 360° area, no matter how many jets there are.

 

Which is not realistic as it is done right now. Not at all :)

A jammer will typically have a little horn antenna that it must point at the target it is trying to jam. There's other ways to do it too though, esp. if you use AESA elements, then we have a whole new ball game, but in my experience this is not the case with anything that isn't in fact equipped with an AESA radar ...

 

Now on the Su-27 and -33 it's possible to equip either one or two jamming pods. I've read somewhere that only one pod will be a bit less effective but not very noticably and certainly not so much to impair the advantage of being able to carry one more R-73.

 

Well that's actually not true. The -reason- why these pods are so effective -is- because they are carried in pairs. One listens, one jams. It allows more processing power for both of them in this manner. If worst comes to worst, you can use both to jam more targets than a single one.

 

Also, Russia deployes 2 pods per 4 flankers ... that means 1 flanker gets to be the jammer. We obviously get no such doctrinal enforcement on the use of jammers in LO.

 

Has anyone tested if this is true or is the jamming performance significantly reduced (in LOMAC, not in reality)?

 

 

Jamming performance in LO is not affected by the number of pods you carry at all. It's just not modelled right, period.

[gundelgauk]

Yes, I realize that the way it's modeled is not at all realistic. My question was only about the jammer behavior in LOMAC, I should have made that more clear.

 

Jamming performance in LO is not affected by the number of pods you carry at all. It's just not modelled right, period.

 

 

Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know! Now I can always carry that extra 73 without worries. Thanks a bunch! :thumbup:

[Willy p.]

I can not speak for Russian aircraft but all US military aircraft have IFF. Jamming a missile should have no affect on a US aircraft ability to identify friend from foe. The transponder in all US aircraft will respond to a challenge with either a MODE 4 or MODE 3 reply. The only time it would come back with an unknown response is if the pilot turned it off or it was inop. Even if the MODE 4 code was wrong or ran out, it would still give a MODE 3 reply…possible friend. I think this needs to be implemented in LockOn, people running around with jammers on all the time (and you know who you are) is unrealistic. Jamming a missile is real, jamming IFF…is not!

 

Thats why we have IFF, because they do not...if you do not get a reply of 4 or 3....then it's dead...smoking...ash...ball of fire in the sky!! "Air Defense warning RED+Weapons FREE"=DEAD aircraft if you come back with an unknown reply.

[Kula66]

One listens, one jams. It allows more processing power for both of them in this manner. If worst comes to worst, you can use both to jam more targets than a single one.

 

GGT, if one listens and one jams and they are mounted on opposite wingtips, what happens if the listener hears a threat in the blind zone of the jammer?

 

Surely, its more sensible that you have one on each wingtip to give you full coverage 360 and that they both listen and jam over their respective arcs.

[GGTharos]

Kula, what have we learned and -repeatedly- pointed out about 'makes sense' when it comes to things we do -not- in fact know? :P

 

This is how the operation of this particular jammer was described to me by a reasonable source. It may have a second antenna pointed backwards, that's not an issue for directionality, and if it -is-, then you basically just have to live with it, like F-16 drivers do with their pods (no protection on the beam)

 

GGT, if one listens and one jams and they are mounted on opposite wingtips, what happens if the listener hears a threat in the blind zone of the jammer?

 

Surely, its more sensible that you have one on each wingtip to give you full coverage 360 and that they both listen and jam over their respective arcs.

[Kula66]

Kula, what have we learned and -repeatedly- pointed out about 'makes sense' when it comes to things we do -not- in fact know? :P

 

No need to be so patronising GGT, it is below you and it lowers the worth of your answer.

 

How does a jammer on the left wing tip, jam something off right side of the a/c at co-height ... or do all Su-27s have a jamming blind spot on one side and an RWR blind spot on the other?

 

Regardless of your source, your anwser doesn't stand up to common sense - and most things designers do are fairly sensible, at least to them.

[GGTharos]

No need to be so patronising GGT, it is below you and it lowers the worth of your answer.

 

Actually I'm trying to be funny but I guess it doesn't come out right in text.

 

How does a jammer on the left wing tip, jam something off right side of the a/c at co-height ... or do all Su-27s have a jamming blind spot on one side and an RWR blind spot on the other?

You could just switch pod roles, and it could be completely automatic. You certainly don't want to shoot the jammer through your aircraft if you can help it.

On the other hand, if you -cannot- switch roles, then employment of the jammer must be planned, and all indications are that this is the case for the RuAF (one set per flight of 4!)

 

Regardless of your source, your anwser doesn't stand up to common sense - and most things designers do are fairly sensible, at least to them.

It doesn't need to stand up to common sense, just like the R-27ET lacking a data link and LOAL capability doesn't stand up to 'common sense' ... at least until you get some extra info.

[Kula66]

Actually I'm trying to be funny but I guess it doesn't come out right in text.

 

Ok ... sorry, I didn't see it as funny.

 

You could just switch pod roles, and it could be completely automatic.

 

Wouldn't that limit you to a single jamming target?

 

On the other hand, if you -cannot- switch roles, then employment of the jammer must be planned, and all indications are that this is the case for the RuAF (one set per flight of 4!)

 

Now THAT would be good to implement on-line!!!

 

It doesn't need to stand up to common sense, just like the R-27ET lacking a data link and LOAL capability doesn't stand up to 'common sense' ... at least until you get some extra info.

 

It does make sense if you understand why the missile was developed ;)

[GGTharos]

Wouldn't that limit you to a single jamming target?

 

Not necessarily - in any case, there are a lot of things that this system can potentially do, wether it does them or not is not an issue of two pods doing this and that - it is strictly a technological issue, and we could go in circles and argue this all day. There's a reason why these things are deployed in pairs, and wether it has to do with increasing number of sources it can jam, or increasing processing power because maybe it was inferior to begin with, or whatever else, we don't really know.

 

 

Now THAT would be good to implement on-line!!!

 

Yep :)

 

It does make sense if you understand why the missile was developed ;)

 

 

No, it makes sense if you understand the targets it was supposed to be used against and the subsequent technological limitations of the seeker :)

 

The Foxbat, which was expected to attack targets at high altitude, with the seeker effectively not being subject to any background clutter, was equipped with a data linked LOAL heater.

[Kula66]

No, it makes sense if you understand the targets it was supposed to be used against

Yes - The why being running down fleeing F-111s and Torndaoes on reheat at relatively short ranges.

[GGTharos]

Or shooting down B-1's and B-52's when their jammers would make your SARH missiles useless :P (Mind you those you can shoot from farther out, IIRC)

[Kula66]

One of the few web finds ...

 

"This new jammer, dubbed the L005S Sorbtsya, works in the H/I band and consists of two pods installed on the wingtips of the Su-27, an interface with the mission computer, and a control panel in the cockpit. Each pod has phased-array antennas fore and aft. The middle section of the Sorbtsya houses the receivers, emitters, and techniques generator. Among the jamming techniques employed by the system are noise jamming and terrain bouncing. The electronic phased-array antenna permits detection over a wide frequency range and the direction of more than ten jamming beams against air-to-air and surface-to-air threats.

 

The installation of the pods on the wingtips has many advantages explained Boris Akinshin, deputy chief designer at KNIRTI. First, the wide space between each pod allows a better coverage of the environment around the aircraft and better signal localization. In addition, the design of the pod is such that it can listen to and jam a threat simultaneously. For instance, when entering a threat zone, the forward part of the right pod will listen, searching for a ground-to-air threat, while the forward part of the left pod will perform the jamming. Such a division of work can be achieved with the rear part of the pods as well."

 

Seems to imply the pods split their function rather than a function per pod ...

[GGTharos]

This must be new - there was no phased array antenna before, IIRC. But there you go. And also the reason they only deploy one pair per flight of four - this thing is like a stand off jammer almost. As you can see though, they must dedicate one antenna to transmitting and one to listening in the same hemisphere.